19.6.16

More Clumps

Once more I'm sharing a method of mine to help decide Senate preferences in Victoria for the 2016 Federal Election - I call it Clumps. In preparing this I have made a study of the Victorian Senate candidates via (i) party websites (ii) other websites and (iii) my own link to the political Zeitgeist. Ideology has been my sole criterion. My intention is that once I have sorted these clumps I can then order the specific groups within (or in some cases across) the clumps. Here is a link back to my Clumps from the last Federal election.

These recommendations will work best for progressive voters like me. To check if you fit that category feel free to take my Political Objectives Test. Clumps may still be useful for those getting ideological liberal, moderate, socialist or radical results but we all think differently so I expect anyone considering my advice will also modify it.

Two things are different this election. One is that we are facing a full Senate election. The other is that we have a new Senate voting method and ballot paper. Now you need to number six-or-more groups above the line or twelve-or-more candidates below the line. I'm presenting clumps in order of approximate palatability. Read from the top and as soon as you have identified six groups to your liking you can stop reading. Or if you are fascinated by the wonderful political diversity of our polity then read to the very end.

I have included the letter designations (A to AL) for each group taken from the Senate white ballot paper. If you want to examine these groups more closely yourself then you can access party websites via the ABC. And if you have any questions do ask.

I put these together in this clump because in one way or another they emphasize personal autonomy and civil liberty. They are culturally permissive. Economics is mixed (if tending to free-market).

The Pirate Party are populated by Internet geeks and present policy in the form of a wiki! They are particularly interested in online freedoms and privacy issues.

I suspect many Secular Party members forget that a secular society is one that accommodates all religions rather than one that lacks them. However they seem to provide a useful counterpoint in an electoral contest that includes many more fundamentalist religious parties.

Marriage Equality is a party for the much-needed promotion of civil rights for queer Australians and has named itself for what is currently the most prominent issue relevant to the movement.

Drug Law Reform and Voluntary Euthanasia Party have names that pretty much tell you what matter to them and both push in the direction of personal autonomy.

I once felt that the Sex Party were too much an extension of the sex industry but they have gotten a better reputation since getting a member elected to the Victorian Parliament. Now they hope to do the same thing Federally.

It seems that Group B involves members of the latter-day Australian Democrats whose party lacks registration in Victoria. Mine was once a progressive party whose very moderate methodology attracted non-progressive voters. In contrast the current group seem to honestly think they can be centrist in an electorate that includes Labor.

Labor are the party of the mixed economy and political compromise and wanting to be progressive but getting scared of conservative lobby groups. As populists they let opportunism dictate many political decisions for the sake of winning or keeping power. However I also consider them the natural party of government.

The Nick Xenophon Team has the purpose of getting some mates elected to keep Senator Xenophon (SA) company. Since his election Xenophon has grown to be much more than a gambling harm-minimization campaigner and self-identifies as centrist.

You may wonder why these groups exist if we have the Greens. In some cases it is that they are so dedicated to particular environmental causes that they trust nobody but themselves. In other cases it is that they may have positions at variance with the Greens on non-environmental issues.

Animal Justice Party radically focuses on animal liberation and veganism.

Sustainable Australia seem to think that population is the issue that defines environmental problems (rather than the consumption patterns of persons and industry).

The Renewable Energy Party is the latest micro-party project of life-long political hack Peter Breen.

This is an interesting mixed clump of parties that either focus on a particular issue or promote the election of a particular public figure (or in some cases both). Often they have a moderate-seeming leader who nonetheless attracts a rather conservative support-base. Take a critical look before voting for them.

Normally one expects ‘law and order’ candidates to be conservative but Derryn Hinch is a media figure who resists such classification. Possibly one could argue that this is a party for moderates because ‘the pendulum has swung too far’ on issues of criminal justice and sentencing. You be the judge (so to speak).

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Tas) is a maverick former associate of Clive Palmer with a focus on defence and veterans issues. Whether I agree with her depends very much on the topic but I continue to be wary despite her new-found independence.

Health Australia Party have a focus on – well - health issues and on the surface look fine. But if you take a closer look at both wording and candidate bios you discover a connection with alternative medicine and New Age doctrines.

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party accidentally elected Senator Ricky Muir (Vic) last time and many have been surprised by his humanity and refreshed by his candour. Take a look however at his voting record and the policy of his party and you will find a more mixed story.

Mature Australia is a party representing older Australians and focusing on issues of aging. Many of them are worthwhile but every so often there is a hint of traditional or ‘old-fashioned’ thinking that marks this as a potentially conservative group.

APATHETIC: VoteFlux (N)

This party has a gimmick rather than an ideology. They have an app rather than any kind of policy platform. If they have opinions nobody will ever know because they will do whatever they are told by whatever group of voters can be bothered getting online and directing them. I think this is stupid.

MARXISTS: Socialist Equality Party (K), Socialist Alliance (Z)

Both these groups are Marxist. The former is a distinct party while the latter is a network of separate organizations. On an issue-by-issue basis progressive voters may well agree with them on many things but personally I have a problem with anyone whose ideology includes talk of violent revolution.

COALITION AND SUBSTITUTES: Palmer United Party (F), Australian Country Party (AA), Liberals / Nationals (AF), Karthik Arasu (UnGrouped)

This clump is for our neo-conservative Liberal & National Coalition but also for parties that would otherwise be them but have some sort of problem with those major parties. It may be personal differences with key figures. It may be party culture or structures. It may be a sense that the Coalition are neglecting some deserving interest they are supposed to support.

Clive Palmer (Qld) made a big splash last time but his small group of parliamentarians soon started having internal problems and I would be surprised if we see them do well this time. The political vanity projects of entrepreneurs tend to come and go.

The Australian Country Party resulted from a merger of Country Alliance with the Victorian chapter of Katter Australia Party. They tend to be former Nationals who feel that the Coalition neglects rural interests and will thus be less into neo-liberal economics and more into morally conservative values.

The problem with independents is that it is difficult to find information on many of them and they can represent any kind of politics (including ones you never imagined existed). As such it is important to err on the side of caution and put them low unless you have information on specific candidates. I have added some independents to other clumps with the designation '(UnGrouped)' if information warranted it. The rest I have listed here (see above). If you have information on any of these that contradicts how I have clumped them then do alert me.

Imagine a community that both takes care of you via welfare and industry protection and polices your personal behaviour ‘for your own good’. This is how I define a clump that laments both the trends of free markets and a permissive society.

The Roman Catholic DLP epitomize this and it is an unusual political tradition with a long history. I have made this separate from the mostly Protestant religious clump and the DLP are far more into interventionist economics.

The Manufacturing And Farming Party has been formed to get Senator John Madigan (Vic) re-elected. Madigan was originally elected as a DLP candidate but then left the party due to nothing more than office politics. As such Madigan still represents the same ‘traditional working family’ he always has.

LIBERTARIAN: Liberal Democrats (AH)

The Liberal Democrats of Senator David Leyonhjelm (NSW) have an ideology wishing to minimize government involvement in all aspects of life except legal defence of person and property. So in economics it is sink or swim for both persons and corporations (we just happen to know that corporations are better swimmers than workers or consumers). And in personal life it is literally your decision and therefore your problem whatever the consequences. The tone is different from what a lot of us feel. Rather than ‘celebrate difference’ it is more ‘do whatever see if I care’.

I call them this because they may well never have gotten political if particular laws did not interfere in how they like to live. Government regulations protecting Australians and the natural environment piss them off. Are necessarily anti-environmentalist and generally conservative.

Australian Liberty Alliance use a lot of libertarian talk but they are more like angry nationalists once you look at the sentiments underpinning what they say.

Shooters Fishers Farmers advocate for rural interests and values and in particular the freedom to hunt and fish all over Australia.

RELIGIOUS ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES: Australian Christians (H), Family First (O), Christian Democratic Party (P), Rise Up Australia (AI), Peter John Hawks (UpGrouped)

For this lot everything is dictated by what they want to think God says. A wonderful excuse for prejudice towards anyone who is different from them in terms of sexuality or family values or religion. They tend to be accepting of different backgrounds and can look multicultural. But they want a society in which we have a homogeneous culture defined by fundamentalist Christianity. Tend to be pro-business and anti-environmentalist.

SECULAR BUT SCARY: Citizens Electoral Council (S), One Nation (Y)

There is plenty of prejudice here. Take a look for yourself if you dare. Both parties combine restrictive cultural values with interventionist economics. Both are anti-environmentalist. In other ways however they are very different.

The CEC is an insular cult-like group with international connections to the LaRouche Movement. They think some of the strangest things. They talk of the value of Abrahamic religions but only as a small part of their wider vision of a virtuous civilization. They deride rock-and-roll and for that alone I oppose them.

One Nation is the nationalist party of Pauline Hanson and while non-religious is still as divisive as anything from the religious fanatic clump. We keep on rejecting them but they just keep on coming back.

Thanks Ryan. The independents are tricky and I'm surprised there are so many. Being 'ungrouped' has never been a smart move and the new voting method has not changed that as far as I'm aware. Maybe this historic full-Senate election is what is attracting them. They will think "I can get in on only 7ish percent of the vote" but overlook the fact that that is a percentage of the entire statewide voting population.

Preference recommendations can tell you something, except too often they are driven by pragmatics than ideology (such as very politically different micro-parties who are swapping preferences because they are desperate).

Yeah, Nalliah and his Rise Up Australia are definitely the worst of the religious micro-parties. Saw him once at a polling place - so much swagger!

Hi Daniel, just a note that the science community are not impressed by the Science Party. They look OK as far as their website policies in my opinion, but some pretty prominent science communicators have engaged them and have not liked what they have found

Peter John Hawks - you have him "unclumped" but I think he belongs in either "coalition + subs" or "issue/personality". He seems more concerned about superannuation than other issues, but is broadly L/CP and libertarian (and anti state ALP).Check his page at https://peterjohnhawks.wordpress.com/ - I'm pretty sure he was on local radio in Castlemaine last week, having a crack about the CFA/UFU dispute.

Thanks Hilary. Can you tell me anything specific or give me any links to follow? I guess what I'm looking for is anything that challenges my _ideological_ classification. If they have some dodgy characters in the party or are just a bit pathetic that is another matter. You can be progressive and still be a bit shit. ;)

Thanks Rob. I drafted most of my content a week ago and I think the Mr Hawks website is newer than that. I will definitely move him and maybe even put him with the fundamentalist parties. As for Geoff Lutz - I _knew_ that name was familiar! Cannot recall a thing about him however.

The Science Party represent the futurist movement - science is the answer, social context unimportantProblems with their policies:#1 Climate change - policy is couched in concerning language. "The Science Party is in favour of moderate, sensible action to mitigate the potential grave risks associated with climate change" "'Potential' grave risks" is particularly worrying Too much focus is on geoengineering to combat climate change "We would fund greatly increased research into geoengineering"#2 Nuclear fusion as a long-term energy solutionWhen approached about unequal gender representation were dismissive and arrogant, getting respected members of the science communication community offside.In short, whoever's wring their policy, it isn't a scientist.

In the past there have been science parties and they always had more than a hint of arrogance to them - a sense that if only scientists were in charge then everything would be dandy. This lot seem to hide that better but what you say is it still exists.

I suspect there are still scientists writing some of it (along with keen enthusiasts) but we know that scientists are never automatically united along policy lines. I have often came cross friends who are far more scientifically literate than me who are also way more keen on nuclear energy than I am. But then I'm a peacenik from way back.

On the topic of the Science party/Nuclear power: Fusion is at least much better than fission in terms of waste and energy production, but it doesn't make sense to go to that as a major long term energy solution when we have so many free renewable energy sources which seem to be becoming more and more viable.

But scientists are a diverse population, and politics is a very different field to Science and I'm not sure scientists would fare well with the shift in incentives.

My understanding was that fusion as an energy source was still experimental. However my own problems with nuclear power have always been economic and political rather than technical.

Economic issues include the massive use of water in mining uranium, the fact the industry almost always expects government funding to help in constructing plants, the intractable problem of nuclear waste disposal.

Political issues include the way the nuclear energy lobby is intertwined with the military lobby such that you cannot ever entirely separate civilian from military interests.

But meanwhile on FB some friends (critical of Greens stance on nuclear) are all arguing for nuclear and they tend to have science backgrounds. What makes someone a 'scientist'? A mere interest? An undergraduate degree? A postgraduate degree? A job in the sciences? I agree that they are part of a diverse population. And they can be progressive yet also technophiles.

About

Intended to be more a website than a weblog in the sense that I want to post particular topics that are non-time specific rather than just have lots of "today I did this..." kind of stuff. Constructive comments on all my posts are welcome.

About Me

I have lived in Australia all my life (except for short visits to NZ and the EU). I live for my interests and also for sharing those interests with friends. I enjoy talking and blogging is a kind of talking.